General discussion


Afghan news

By Oz_Media ·
Well it's been plastered all over newpapers and news reports for a few weeks now, how much is seen in the US and from whatnetworks? Do they have any credibility for reporting or are they seen as left wing nutbags?

Story in brief. Iraq is now rife with Al-Qaeda, they have kiled most leaders of small militant groups and recruited their fighters to fight for AlQaeda now.

Since the onset of the invasion, AlQaeda has apparently grown from 5% of the insurgency to over 85% as they have taken over so many groups.

Canadian troops have been sent to Afghanistan to control the ghrowth of the Taliban in Kandahar and try to restrict their movement into outlying areas. As they were practically left in Afghanistan to rebuild and convene in Kandahar in the interim, they have been providing even more resitance to Canadian troops on the ground near Kandahar than any resitance found during the initial conflict in Afghanistan.

In short, since the supposed 'defeat of AlQaeda' and thumbing of noses towards their threats of growth and vengeance on the free world, AlQaeda has becoem FAR stronger and far larger than ever before.

So what is reported elsewhere?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Local newspapers

by onbliss In reply to Afghan news

Two local newspapers had articles on their front page about the resurgence of Taliban in Afghanistan. I did see reports on the escalation of suicide bombings in Afghanistan.

Collapse -

How about troops?

by Oz_Media In reply to Local newspapers

Has there been any debates as to whether or not troops should be stepped up in Afghanistan or is it a commonly forgotten issue for general public these days?

Just wondering because this is the information that seems to be filing our homes in all news forms, this has beenescalating since just before Canada took over combat operations near Kandahar. First it was a really left wing uproar over the fact that people didn't think our soldiers should be entered into active combat in Afhganistan. After they explained that they are actually trained for combat and expect it, the anti war, lefty's hushed.

But since then violence has become very intense, far more than the original resistance found when teh coalition troops first invaded, as ALQaeda and Taliban have grown in number around the middle east and the rest of the world.

Do you think the lack of focus is to keep positive feelings toward "Peace in the Middle East" ? (maybe a title for Iron Maiden's next tour)

Is it perhaps that fewer US troops are involved and it simply isn't an ongoing news issue?

I know you have said there was a couple of front pages and some news reports about suicide bombings, but I think that it would normally be deemed more newsworthy than that really. Iraqi issues seem to dominate news, as Afghanistan once did. Unfortunately the situation and resistance in Afghanistan seems to be equal or just as 'resistive' to the violence and terrorism seen in Iraq.

Is it perhaps that some people are trying to bring such news to the world and yet others are trying to diffuse focus? The whole left vs right issue where in the end, nobody really wins and gets the full story?

Collapse -

Am not a news junkie

by onbliss In reply to How about troops?

There does not seem to be much debate on troops in Afghanistan. I would say the media is more focused on the November elections.

In my opinion, the immediate concern for both the political parties is about controlling the Congress after the November elections.

Like I said, the front page articles referred to more about how Taliban was gaining grounds.

I try to watch BBC America in the mornings, and even BBC does not have much on Afghanistan. I am not sure if Afghanistan has receded into memory around the globe.

Collapse -

What Troops??

by dawgit In reply to How about troops?

No-one has any more troops to spare. (they should have thought about that before they started setting fires all over the world) Every available Army, from any country, is over comitted. oops, not good for the good guys.

Collapse -


by Oz_Media In reply to What Troops??

Unfortunately what most saw ahead of time, is now expected to be seen as 'hindsight is 20/20'. It's an easy but weak defense for those who refused to accept such comments before invading Iraq.

You're right though, what troops? "Spread too thin" gee, I'm sure i heard that before and how quickly it was shot down due to "Americas military size". It was a strong right wing opinion that said there were still troops in Afghanistan and they had enough to be in more than one place at a time.

I guess 'they are right, hindsight really IS 20/20, now if only we had thought of that before. :)

Collapse -


by ProtiusX In reply to Afghan news

I would question the source of the reports. I know for a fact that the "bad guys" in Iraq are far fewer in number today than they were two years ago. I think what you may be hearing or reading is what was leaked from a report detailing that support amongst Sunni?s has increased from 5% to 85% for the insurgency over the last two years. These snippets from the report were intentionally leaked to mislead the press and the public to what is actually going on over there. Granted I came back to the US in February but I have a pretty good understanding of what was and is happening there.

There are external elements that are infiltrating Iraq and fomenting the unrest between the Sunnis and the Shiites in order to spark a civil war. This would ultimately hurt the US and this is the end game of the Islamo-fascists.

Collapse -

Saw it, didn't read it

by Oz_Media In reply to Questionable

Actually the report was not that resistance had increased but that AlQaeda, who once held a VERY small part of the Iraqi insurgency )est.5%) has now infiltrated (for lack of a better word) the other NUMEROUS terror groups fighting in Iraq by killing leaders and adopting the fighters.

This was actually a Canadian reporter who was filming and interviewing some of the leaders of teh insurgency in Iraq as well as reporting from teh streets from the enemies perspective and while on location with the terroists as they fought off allied troops.

It was just like when they report with the local troops from the "front line", except from the other side.

EVer since Abu Ayyub al-Masri took over in Iraq, AlQaeda are reported to have taken over most smaller insurgent groups from a point where AlQeda was represented 5% of the insurgency to having control of over the majority now.

These are now supposedly fighters supported with extreme wealth and numbers that intiate far more carefully controlled and intricately planned attacks than the 'mad bombers' have done until now.

Collapse -

Mushie agrees

by onbliss In reply to Questionable

Pervez Musharraf appeared on Daily Show with Jon Stewart tonight. Though he did not want to get into a debate on Iraq war, he seemed to be of the opinion that Iraq war has caused extremism to increase. I doubt if his opinions are just bassed on some leaked report.

In order to better understand what you are saying, can you kind of substantiated the numbers two years ago and now - the basis for your facts?

Collapse -

Unfortunatly, No.

by ProtiusX In reply to Mushie agrees

There are some things that one is allowed to say and there are things that one is not allowed to say. I know that this sounds very cloak and dagger and that isn't my intent but I can't talk about my experiences there except for in the general. So, if this means I must concede then so be it.

Collapse -

I perfectly understand

by onbliss In reply to Unfortunatly, No.

My father retired from a para-military service (it is known in certain circles as such), and he kept certain things away from the family. He was a civilian though.

I don't want the specifics, can you elaborate a little bit more on the generals? Even if you can not, I would'nt jump to a conclusion that you must concede.

Related Discussions

Related Forums